Im arguing with my friend.
Im with Nuclear Power my friend is with Solar. Here is what the argument is like so far
Me – Solar power isn’t very efficient, especially in the Britain! It rains a lot.
Harry S. – it’s cheap and efficient and works on light not direct sunshine.
Me – Nuclear power is more efficient, although it leaves traces of radioactivity.
Harry S. – Solar panels are very small and there’s more of them in the UK.
Me – Solar power IS nuclear power. Just because it’s very very far away doesn’t make it less dangerous.
Solar power is NOT free. There’s the opportunity cost of not being able to harvest food / bio fuel crops where the panels are placed. Solar panels are also less efficient than plants at capturing all the radiation energy. Burning wood would be more economical for the ecosystem.
Too many solar panels affect the landscape in a negative way.
Nuclear fuel / waste is compact. Few centrals are needed. Some reactor types also produce useful byproducts (plutonium).
Nuclear power can be generated anywhere, not only in sunny regions.
Harry S. – Nuclear power stations are extremely expensive to build and can be dangerous exposing us and our world to harm full radiation e.g Chernobyl and Japan. These disasters have polluted farmland and killed hundreds of people with millions suffering from long term health problems. Who has been killed by a solar panel? The price to life is to high for nuclear! Solar panels also look better than a huge concrete towers.
Me – The forgotten dangers of solar panels:
According to Safework Australia, each year about 30 Australians die in falls from a height. Some falls involving people installing or maintaining solar panels are not reported as part of work-related statistics, and then there are people electrocuted when they come into contact with power lines.
In California, where solar panels have been embraced enthusiastically, there has been a rash of deaths like this one, this one, and another three in quick succession. However, it is a worldwide phenomenon, so much so that statistics show roofing is more dangerous than coal mining.
Because of our propensity to put panels on roofs, solar is in fact, far more dangerous than many forms of power generation, three times more dangerous than wind power and more than 10 times more dangerous than nuclear power, by comparison to the amount of power produced.
The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWH of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents. There is an argument, however, that solar power may ultimately be safer than coal-fired generation because of the reduction in pollution. Ironically enough, however, solar power is far more dangerous than nuclear, even in a year when an accident like the disaster at Fukushima occurs.
What do you think he will say next?
Does anyone have anything to say about nuclear power that will support me?
Do you think nuclear power is better. Why?
Is a nuclear power plant cheaper than the overall cost and maintenance of a solar farm or a solar panel?
What are your views on nuclear power and solar power?
Any pros and cons about nuclear and solar?
Could the world still run for a bit with nuclear power?
If you lived that long how did you react when nuclear power was introduced. Did you think solar was better?
If you have anything that could hep me win this argument please say.
More Pages:
- Solar Power: Why Are People So Ignorant About The Safety Of Nuclear Power Plants? (11/16/2011)
- Solar Turbines: Do U Think It Is Wrong To Use Nuclear Power Plant? (5/11/2012)
- Why don’t we build more Nuclear Power plants? Why don’t environmentalist support Nuclear Energy? Political?
- Solar Producer: Should We Judge God Based On His Works? (12/26/2011)
- Solar Turbines: Why Should We Increase Nuclear Power Use When Geothermal And Solar Thermal Are Available? (4/20/2012)
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
nuke for me but the waste product is high to get rid of and pollutes the world but they can hall that to india or some place solar in texas is great till we have one of them twisters and the thing becomes leathal but we dont fall off the house putting them up we might fall off the house drunk or fishing but not that we have a lot of the wind mills going but the deer dont like them so the fat cats from the citys that hunt our land dont like them. we have water power plants that run generators. that is cool
They are both great options. Although I would suggest that you take a look at this article about the advantages of nuclear power and see what you think (http://www.dailyenergyreport.com/2011/01/advantages-of-nuclear-power-2/). Although both require large upfront costs, t the end of the day, they are both good solutions because their scalable generation options who’s technology is only getting better over time. At the end of the day, many time the generation source is dictated by the location of the development. Meaning, if there are states or countries with certain rules for or against a certain type of generation technology then that will affect what get’s built. Hope this was helpful.